Log in

View Full Version : NATO: Russia talk of pre-emptive strike



Jaykub
05-04-2012, 11:20 AM
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/04/us-nato-russia-shield-idUSTRE8430Z020120504

BERLIN (Reuters) - A Kremlin threat to launch pre-emptive strikes on a planned NATO missile defense system in Europe is unjustified as the system poses no threat to Russia's security, the head of the Atlantic alliance said on Friday.

NATO has long insisted that the anti-missile shield it is developing is aimed at protecting member states from a possible Iranian attack, but Russia fears the system could undermine the effectiveness of its own nuclear arsenal.

In a stark escalation of rhetoric ahead of Vladimir Putin's return to the presidency next week, Russia's military chief-of-staff said on Thursday that Moscow might be forced to carry out pre-emptive strikes on NATO missile defense installations.

"These statements are unjustified," NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in Berlin after talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

"Our missile defense system is not technically designed to threaten Russia in any way and we have provided that information to the Russians. Politically, we don't have any intention to attack Russia," he added.

NATO has invited Russia to cooperate on missile defense and they have shared defense interests, Rasmussen said, adding that NATO and Moscow had signed a pact 15 years ago pledging they would not use force against one another.

"The best way for the Russians to see with their own eyes that our system is not directed against them would be to co-operate actively," he said.

"We will continue our dialogue with Russia and I hope one day in the future we will reach an agreement."

General Nikolai Makarov, Russia's military chief-of-staff, told an international conference in Moscow on Thursday: "Decisions on the pre-emptive use of ... attack components will be taken in the period of heightening tension."

Testy exchanges between the Russian hosts and U.S. and NATO officials at the conference exposed how far apart the old Cold War foes remain on the terms of a deal that would allow them to cooperate on missile defense, an arrangement both say they want.

The missile defense system is due to be completed in four phases by about 2020 and includes interceptor missiles based in Poland and Romania.

Moscow says the West will gain the ability to shoot down Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in a few years, weakening Russia's nuclear deterrent.

Makarov said European states should decide whether protection against a possible future threat from nations such as Iran was worth the risk of facing down Russian weapons that would pose a "real threat" to countries hosting the facilities.

NATO will hold a summit in Chicago on May 20-21 at which the shield's first phase is to be declared up and running.]

I feel sorry for anyone that would challenge the NATO Army.

paecmaker
05-04-2012, 12:20 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/04/us-nato-russia-shield-idUSTRE8430Z020120504


I feel sorry for anyone that would challenge the NATO Army.

I feel sorry for living in the middle of two major powers :/


(between a rock and a hard place)

---------- Post added at 07:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:13 PM ----------


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/04/us-nato-russia-shield-idUSTRE8430Z020120504


I feel sorry for anyone that would challenge the NATO Army.

I feel sorry for living in the middle of two major powers :/


(between a rock and a hard place)

LemonRising
05-04-2012, 01:35 PM
Why can't we all just get along >:U
At least live with each other and not have to deal with missiles and armies and such nonsense.

Jaykub
05-04-2012, 01:48 PM
That's the point, We're trying to defend our self against missile strikes and Russia has a problem with that >_<

CraeSC111
05-04-2012, 10:15 PM
Russia provides Iran with material for nuclear missiles then gets mad when NATO puts up missile defense systems? They totally aren't up to anything

LiNuX
05-05-2012, 12:03 AM
We need a global defense system that undermines every nuclear arsenal, not just Russia's.


Russia provides Iran with material for nuclear missiles then gets mad when NATO puts up missile defense systems? They totally aren't up to anything

Where did you find info that says Russia provided Iran with stuff for nukes?

CraeSC111
05-07-2012, 02:47 PM
Back in 2010 Russia gave Iran fuel for their nuclear reactor. (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-08-13/world/nuclear.russia.iran_1_bushehr-facility-nuclear-reactor-visit-iran-next-week?_s=PM:WORLD) It caused scares over Iranian nuclear capabilities. Not sure if it was a factor in Iran developing WMDs but it does seem somewhat likely.
And we need missile defense systems that mitigate everyone else's nuclear capabilities, besides our own (sorry European people :p)

paecmaker
05-07-2012, 03:23 PM
Back in 2010
And we need missile defense systems that mitigate everyone else's nuclear capabilities, besides our own (sorry European people :p)

Thats a bit like

no one should be able to have nuclear weapons, EXCEPT US MOAHAHAHAHA!!!(evil laugh)

---------- Post added at 10:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 PM ----------


Back in 2010
And we need missile defense systems that mitigate everyone else's nuclear capabilities, besides our own (sorry European people :p)

Thats a bit like

no one should be able to have nuclear weapons, EXCEPT US MOAHAHAHAHA!!!(evil laugh)

CraeSC111
05-10-2012, 03:46 AM
Of course no one should have nukes but us. If countries have to have sticks I want mine to have the biggest stick. Or if none should have sticks I want mine to break the rules and pick up a stick.

Jaykub
05-10-2012, 09:03 AM
Of course no one should have nukes but us. If countries have to have sticks I want mine to have the biggest stick. Or if none should have sticks I want mine to break the rules and pick up a stick.

Actually if the world had no nukes we would be living in a better place.

CraeSC111
05-10-2012, 02:53 PM
Well if you look at C&C Red Alert if we had no nukes the Russians would be winning and Japan would have giant killer robots :P. I don't think the world would be terribly different if we didn't have nukes. We would have developed something to get an edge over other countries in the arms race.

LemonRising
05-10-2012, 04:55 PM
An arms race only leads to world wars.
Nukes should just not exist.

Exentenzed
05-10-2012, 06:17 PM
Of course no one should have nukes but us. If countries have to have sticks I want mine to have the biggest stick. Or if none should have sticks I want mine to break the rules and pick up a stick.

That's the kind of thinking that made us develop nukes in the first place. And yea, there would still be wars without nukes, the problem is the excessive collateral damage they, and other WMD's cause. Im glad Norway don't have nukes, i would be even happier if no one else had them either. That beeing said, we do have allies who do. :(

CraeSC111
05-10-2012, 07:43 PM
Its kinda funny the biggest deterrent against using nukes is having them nuke you back. Even without nukes I'm sure that someone would've come up with ways to kill lots of people. Look at what machine guns did in world war 1. We have killed a lot more people with other weapons than with nukes. (We've probably killed more people with toasters. They are dangerous) I don't deny that it'd be best if no one had a stick but that's just not gonna happen. Someone will always make a bigger stick. Maybe one day we'll wipe ourselves out. Then there wouldn't be any sticks :p